Are you kidding me? When the oil industry collapsed in alberta there was nowhere for Chemical Engineers to go. Companies don't just magically appear and when they collapse, the ripple effect on honest people's lives are devastating. That's friggen WHY too big to fail is even a thing. As shitty as it is to bail out irresponsible companies, the alternative of letting them collapse would have ruined America far worse.

>if living in luxury is hurting someone that is bad.

Are you fucking kidding me? So how poor do you need to live? Do we all need to be the saint mentioned above? Living like homeless people? Is that the only way to be good?

>The world could function as not for profit

Who would donate to them? No one would have any money? It'd be a bartering system of services being managed in the form of not for profits on an olligarchical level. Inevitably competition would be injected and rather than denying currency, services would be denied. Right now people just need to budget themselves. In your "utopia" regardless of what people do, if the not-for-profit olligarch they belong to is in strife with another they will lose all services. Wow, really well thought out!

>The current system equates success with immorality

My father literally just stopped someone from wrongfully taking 9 million dollars from hard-working tradesmen. Is his success somehow immoral because he asked for 500k (only for winning) after spending 5 years on the case? He is the obstacle to immorality. Him and everyone like him. So yeah, I'm mad that you sweep that shit under the rug just because he enjoys the luxuries that his labour has earned him.

>I'm proposing a moral utopia

Where communism is the doctrine.

>I am fighting people who couldn't win competitively.

They view the capacity of their ability to mask truth to be a competitive attribute, but my argument is in your "utopia" assholes like this will still exist. My dad and other people like him are the only protection regular people have against these dicks. But no, he isn't a good person. After all, he's paid.

>you're upset that according to my standards you aren't good.

Yes, because your standards are bullshit. You effectively require that in order to be good you must live as if you are in poverty. It is very rare that anyone with the skills necessary not to live in poverty would choose poverty over a decent life. You are requiring the soul of a saint for the title of "good".

>you are happy to work for yourself.

In service to others.

>do you really give good to others

My dad could have been the lawyer for the snake you know.

>even if you serve an essential function in society, if you profit from it and don't immediately give it all away, how are you good?

Because you are performing an essential function for society. If you don't do it, society collapses. Or should our doctors be paid pennies too? That'll really encourage quality healthcare I think.

I agree. But those Chemical Engineers can't find work as Chemical Engineers. But they could find work elsewhere as something else. Most likely something lower paying. But the idea of compromising your standard of living is unthinkable to the average American. And so we live on a system that does not take care of someone when they fall. A company becomes massive and profitable and carries the lives of many workers on its shoulders only to drop them hard if it gets out competed and fails.

And yes. Everyone should ideally live as a saint. Notice how most saints lived on very little. Compared to how we live, we should live poorly. To give you an idea, if you were to take an educated estimate of all the money in the world and divided it up between all living people, each person would only get somewhere around 2-5 thousand American dollars. That means that if you own more than that then there are other people out there who have less than that to live on. So you should live dirt poor so long as there are other people who need your support to live healthy decent lives. And there will always be those people. Being a truly good person is quite the sacrifice.

Not for profit doesn't always mean the organization runs purely off of donations. It means it runs and sells its goods without trying to make any profit besides operation costs. Imagine if every business in existence kept working but instead of trying to squeeze profit out of their customers, they simple made enough to work effectively.

And what allowed that exploitation of the 9 million? It was the current system. And 500k for 5 years? That's 100k per year. Do you know how many people could live healthily off of that? Yes, taking that much is taking too much from any angle it can be looked at. And even if your father did the right thing in who he represented, him keeping the money and not further helping was not the right thing to do. Helping others to the full extent of your ability is always the right thing to do.

Communism is the same as capitalism when they are taken to the extreme. In both systems their is either a free market run by the people in which no government regulates or there is a massive government that every single person is part of and thus is run by the people. If the people in a pure capitalist utopia are moral then they will give to those in need freely and work like one big family structure. If the people in a communist utopia were moral they would work hard to contribute and give to those in need just like a family structure. They are the same idea at the core. Both could work.

And you might be able to do some good getting paid if you gave up a better job for one that you feel does more good. Like a nurse working at a clinic instead of a high paying hospital job. But your father would be doing more good if he didn't charge for his services. Or if he at least charged less. Surely you cant argue that your family needs 100 dollars a year to function.

And that's exactly why rich people have trouble getting into heaven. Because like you just said "Why can't I be a good person and still be wealthy and live better than everyone else?"

And do you read what you are saying? That it would take a saint. Someone inhuman to give up their riches once they have them. A rich man will give any justification in order to keep his riches.

And I'm afraid that "My father could have done worse" is not a very good argument. Anyone could do worse.

Are you sure society would collapse? There are very few services that are needed. People could live without their iPhones, without their alcohol. Aside from medical, food, shelter, and clothes, the rest could collapse and humanity would go on. Perhaps healthier without such things. And couldn't that essential function be preformed better by someone who wants to do it simply to help others instead of to make money? Can you not see the evil in a business that would cut corners and hurt others just to make money?

I forget the name of the charity, but it's a Christianity based charity for children that uses almost 90 something percent of donated money for the actual purpose of the donation. The only reason I know this vaguely is that it was the charity that actually helped my mother's family when she was a child in the Philippines

If a ceo quits that may very well end a company and lose thousands of men.

Also last I checked being normal is not diametrically opposed to being good

The world can't function on not for profit organizations. But it's obvious you don't understand balance.

You think some kind of communist utopia is the ideal? Where no one works for themselves, everyone works for everyone else? Newsflash. I'm representing people who get destroyed by your utopia. I'm protecting them from liars and cheats who would swindle them out of millions of hard earned dollars and you have the audacity to say that we are evil because we aren't out in the streets feeding the homeless.

My dad has helped far more people than you can ever dream of helping, you're just mad because he gets paid to do it.

And when that company falls then another will rise to fill the need. I'm sure most companies would like you to believe that their product is what civilization hinges on but unless all our food or water starts coming from a single corporation then that Achilles heel is non existent. Not to say that some wouldn't consider the fall of Apple the end of the world.

It's normal to care about one's own well being. It's normal to do what is necessary to survive. And it is normal to want to go beyond survival and thrive and live in luxury. But if your living in luxury is hurting someone else then yes, it's bad. And there is nothing morally good about you simply taking up space and sucking up more resources than you really need.

And the world could function on not for profit organizations. In fact it would work better. Competition is good but can go too far. And while anyone is entitled to do well in an economy, there's no reason an organization should be allowed to gain unspeakable amounts of power. It's a system that simply equates success with immorality.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not proposing a communist utopia. I'm proposing a moral utopia. Capitalism and communism are irrelevant. Both work in moral society and fail miserably in an amoral society.

Though I highly doubt you're representing people who get destroyed by any utopia. It sounds to me like they get hurt by amoral people living selfish lives. Ones who were unable to win in the competition that is capitalism and thus have tried to resort to amoral means in order to make money.

I also never said you were evil. You seem to be getting upset when put under a moral scrutiny so I think we should end this argument as I make a policy to never argue with anyone who become the least bit angry or upset.

What I said was that you are rich and content in your life. You are happy to work for yourself and make money doing it. But what do you really give for the good others? I do see the importance of lawyers in this loop hole ridden Godless system we call law and justice, but even if you serve a function in society, if you profit from it and then use that profit only for self pleasure, then how exactly is that good? Especially when there are starving and suffering people who could be given a tolerable life with that same excess you spend on luxury.

And I admit I am jealous of the amount of good your father does. I wish I were capable of doing more than I do now. But that doesn't change the fact that nothing self serving can be considered a good deed. Even if your profit helps someone else on the side.

Are you kidding me? When the oil industry collapsed in alberta there was nowhere for Chemical Engineers to go. Companies don't just magically appear and when they collapse, the ripple effect on honest people's lives are devastating. That's friggen WHY too big to fail is even a thing. As shitty as it is to bail out irresponsible companies, the alternative of letting them collapse would have ruined America far worse.

>if living in luxury is hurting someone that is bad.

Are you fucking kidding me? So how poor do you need to live? Do we all need to be the saint mentioned above? Living like homeless people? Is that the only way to be good?

>The world could function as not for profit

Who would donate to them? No one would have any money? It'd be a bartering system of services being managed in the form of not for profits on an olligarchical level. Inevitably competition would be injected and rather than denying currency, services would be denied. Right now people just need to budget themselves. In your "utopia" regardless of what people do, if the not-for-profit olligarch they belong to is in strife with another they will lose all services. Wow, really well thought out!

>The current system equates success with immorality

My father literally just stopped someone from wrongfully taking 9 million dollars from hard-working tradesmen. Is his success somehow immoral because he asked for 500k (only for winning) after spending 5 years on the case? He is the obstacle to immorality. Him and everyone like him. So yeah, I'm mad that you sweep that shit under the rug just because he enjoys the luxuries that his labour has earned him.

>I'm proposing a moral utopia

Where communism is the doctrine.

>I am fighting people who couldn't win competitively.

They view the capacity of their ability to mask truth to be a competitive attribute, but my argument is in your "utopia" assholes like this will still exist. My dad and other people like him are the only protection regular people have against these dicks. But no, he isn't a good person. After all, he's paid.

>you're upset that according to my standards you aren't good.

Yes, because your standards are bullshit. You effectively require that in order to be good you must live as if you are in poverty. It is very rare that anyone with the skills necessary not to live in poverty would choose poverty over a decent life. You are requiring the soul of a saint for the title of "good".

>you are happy to work for yourself.

In service to others.

>do you really give good to others

My dad could have been the lawyer for the snake you know.

>even if you serve an essential function in society, if you profit from it and don't immediately give it all away, how are you good?

Because you are performing an essential function for society. If you don't do it, society collapses. Or should our doctors be paid pennies too? That'll really encourage quality healthcare I think.

I agree. But those Chemical Engineers can't find work as Chemical Engineers. But they could find work elsewhere as something else. Most likely something lower paying. But the idea of compromising your standard of living is unthinkable to the average American. And so we live on a system that does not take care of someone when they fall. A company becomes massive and profitable and carries the lives of many workers on its shoulders only to drop them hard if it gets out competed and fails.

And yes. Everyone should ideally live as a saint. Notice how most saints lived on very little. Compared to how we live, we should live poorly. To give you an idea, if you were to take an educated estimate of all the money in the world and divided it up between all living people, each person would only get somewhere around 2-5 thousand American dollars. That means that if you own more than that then there are other people out there who have less than that to live on. So you should live dirt poor so long as there are other people who need your support to live healthy decent lives. And there will always be those people. Being a truly good person is quite the sacrifice.

Not for profit doesn't always mean the organization runs purely off of donations. It means it runs and sells its goods without trying to make any profit besides operation costs. Imagine if every business in existence kept working but instead of trying to squeeze profit out of their customers, they simple made enough to work effectively.

And what allowed that exploitation of the 9 million? It was the current system. And 500k for 5 years? That's 100k per year. Do you know how many people could live healthily off of that? Yes, taking that much is taking too much from any angle it can be looked at. And even if your father did the right thing in who he represented, him keeping the money and not further helping was not the right thing to do. Helping others to the full extent of your ability is always the right thing to do.

Communism is the same as capitalism when they are taken to the extreme. In both systems their is either a free market run by the people in which no government regulates or there is a massive government that every single person is part of and thus is run by the people. If the people in a pure capitalist utopia are moral then they will give to those in need freely and work like one big family structure. If the people in a communist utopia were moral they would work hard to contribute and give to those in need just like a family structure. They are the same idea at the core. Both could work.

And you might be able to do some good getting paid if you gave up a better job for one that you feel does more good. Like a nurse working at a clinic instead of a high paying hospital job. But your father would be doing more good if he didn't charge for his services. Or if he at least charged less. Surely you cant argue that your family needs 100 dollars a year to function.

And that's exactly why rich people have trouble getting into heaven. Because like you just said "Why can't I be a good person and still be wealthy and live better than everyone else?"

And do you read what you are saying? That it would take a saint. Someone inhuman to give up their riches once they have them. A rich man will give any justification in order to keep his riches.

And I'm afraid that "My father could have done worse" is not a very good argument. Anyone could do worse.

Are you sure society would collapse? There are very few services that are needed. People could live without their iPhones, without their alcohol. Aside from medical, food, shelter, and clothes, the rest could collapse and humanity would go on. Perhaps healthier without such things. And couldn't that essential function be preformed better by someone who wants to do it simply to help others instead of to make money? Can you not see the evil in a business that would cut corners and hurt others just to make money?

Graduated? Spent my summer working for my dad... I. E. 12 hours a day 6 days a week representing his clients, trade workers who weren't paid their dues by shady contractors.

Im not trying to prove myself. I'm trying to illustrate that the wealthy illustrate their goodness in their work, because their wealth tends to stem from their work.

People love to bag on ceos for making 1000x more than the average worker, but they don't care that he works 6 day weeks every week. They don't care that he has to bring his laptop and phone on every vacation and do business there too. Yes he can buy wonderful things, but the majority of his life is spent in service of his company which employs thousands and provides services to potentially millions.

Even if he didn't give charity, on what planet is THAT not enough? Not misers and userers who cheat people for their wealth, yeah fuck em. But plenty of wealthy, of not the majority, achieved their wealth through grit and hard work.

And that's wonderful and always good to hear of a family doing well. But just doing well yourself is not a good deed. Running a business and making profit by working is not a good deed. It's not bad either but unless you are working non-profit then you are not being a good person. You are being a normal person.

There is no goodness in your works unless your works are good. Asking for money for a service is not a good act, it is a fair trade. But a trade is meant to be equal. Each party has too much of a resource and so both exchange an equal amount of each and both get what they need by both giving. A fair trade. But it's when you take more than you need it becomes amoral. Even if you can make your slight desperate neighbor give you 3 apples for your 2 peaches, should you?

And the capitalist system in which you and your father work does not do good on its own. It preys on the weak and allows for those in power to exploit those without.

A CEO is a good example of this. Do you think a CEO works 1000x harder than a blue collar worker? Even if he worked 24 hours of the day and never slept would that constitute 1000x times more work invested? Or did they find an exploit in the system. Someone can not win unless someone else loses. You cannot gain without taking that gain from somewhere.

Do you think that major corporations advertise and worry about profit margins so heavily because they are worried their business will fail and people won't be able to buy their products? Do you think people work their jobs everyday because they are happy and eager to hold up a part of a system that feeds and clothes people? Of course not. They want money to fulfill their own luxuries. And corporations do not service the masses, they profit from them. And I admit I haven't studied ever single corporation, but the ones I have always exploit wherever possible and would exploit further if not for backlash from the public.

There is no goodness in work you do and profit from.

And it is on this and ever other planet that that is not enough. Does not everyone who can be called a decent person hug and kiss their mother? Does not every normal sane person help the naked stranger they pass, shivering on the street?

This is not being a good person. It is being a decent person. So often today is being decent and doing the bare minimum considered being good. But to do good you must go beyond the convenient and good for you. A good deed is worthless if you did it simply because it also served you.

To be a good person is to be gentle and empathetic to those who hate you. It is to search out the people you don't know are suffering and try to help them. It is to give of yourself. Not give the minimum and spend the extra on yourself.

This is exactly why a rich man has trouble getting into heaven. It's not because he chooses to do evil. It's because he warps the meaning of doing good until it allows him to live his life comfortably and not have to give anything that strains him one bit.

If a ceo quits that may very well end a company and lose thousands of men.

Also last I checked being normal is not diametrically opposed to being good

The world can't function on not for profit organizations. But it's obvious you don't understand balance.

You think some kind of communist utopia is the ideal? Where no one works for themselves, everyone works for everyone else? Newsflash. I'm representing people who get destroyed by your utopia. I'm protecting them from liars and cheats who would swindle them out of millions of hard earned dollars and you have the audacity to say that we are evil because we aren't out in the streets feeding the homeless.

My dad has helped far more people than you can ever dream of helping, you're just mad because he gets paid to do it.

And when that company falls then another will rise to fill the need. I'm sure most companies would like you to believe that their product is what civilization hinges on but unless all our food or water starts coming from a single corporation then that Achilles heel is non existent. Not to say that some wouldn't consider the fall of Apple the end of the world.

It's normal to care about one's own well being. It's normal to do what is necessary to survive. And it is normal to want to go beyond survival and thrive and live in luxury. But if your living in luxury is hurting someone else then yes, it's bad. And there is nothing morally good about you simply taking up space and sucking up more resources than you really need.

And the world could function on not for profit organizations. In fact it would work better. Competition is good but can go too far. And while anyone is entitled to do well in an economy, there's no reason an organization should be allowed to gain unspeakable amounts of power. It's a system that simply equates success with immorality.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not proposing a communist utopia. I'm proposing a moral utopia. Capitalism and communism are irrelevant. Both work in moral society and fail miserably in an amoral society.

Though I highly doubt you're representing people who get destroyed by any utopia. It sounds to me like they get hurt by amoral people living selfish lives. Ones who were unable to win in the competition that is capitalism and thus have tried to resort to amoral means in order to make money.

I also never said you were evil. You seem to be getting upset when put under a moral scrutiny so I think we should end this argument as I make a policy to never argue with anyone who become the least bit angry or upset.

What I said was that you are rich and content in your life. You are happy to work for yourself and make money doing it. But what do you really give for the good others? I do see the importance of lawyers in this loop hole ridden Godless system we call law and justice, but even if you serve a function in society, if you profit from it and then use that profit only for self pleasure, then how exactly is that good? Especially when there are starving and suffering people who could be given a tolerable life with that same excess you spend on luxury.

And I admit I am jealous of the amount of good your father does. I wish I were capable of doing more than I do now. But that doesn't change the fact that nothing self serving can be considered a good deed. Even if your profit helps someone else on the side.

Are you kidding me? When the oil industry collapsed in alberta there was nowhere for Chemical Engineers to go. Companies don't just magically appear and when they collapse, the ripple effect on honest people's lives are devastating. That's friggen WHY too big to fail is even a thing. As shitty as it is to bail out irresponsible companies, the alternative of letting them collapse would have ruined America far worse.

>if living in luxury is hurting someone that is bad.

Are you fucking kidding me? So how poor do you need to live? Do we all need to be the saint mentioned above? Living like homeless people? Is that the only way to be good?

>The world could function as not for profit

Who would donate to them? No one would have any money? It'd be a bartering system of services being managed in the form of not for profits on an olligarchical level. Inevitably competition would be injected and rather than denying currency, services would be denied. Right now people just need to budget themselves. In your "utopia" regardless of what people do, if the not-for-profit olligarch they belong to is in strife with another they will lose all services. Wow, really well thought out!

>The current system equates success with immorality

My father literally just stopped someone from wrongfully taking 9 million dollars from hard-working tradesmen. Is his success somehow immoral because he asked for 500k (only for winning) after spending 5 years on the case? He is the obstacle to immorality. Him and everyone like him. So yeah, I'm mad that you sweep that shit under the rug just because he enjoys the luxuries that his labour has earned him.

>I'm proposing a moral utopia

Where communism is the doctrine.

>I am fighting people who couldn't win competitively.

They view the capacity of their ability to mask truth to be a competitive attribute, but my argument is in your "utopia" assholes like this will still exist. My dad and other people like him are the only protection regular people have against these dicks. But no, he isn't a good person. After all, he's paid.

>you're upset that according to my standards you aren't good.

Yes, because your standards are bullshit. You effectively require that in order to be good you must live as if you are in poverty. It is very rare that anyone with the skills necessary not to live in poverty would choose poverty over a decent life. You are requiring the soul of a saint for the title of "good".

>you are happy to work for yourself.

In service to others.

>do you really give good to others

My dad could have been the lawyer for the snake you know.

>even if you serve an essential function in society, if you profit from it and don't immediately give it all away, how are you good?

Because you are performing an essential function for society. If you don't do it, society collapses. Or should our doctors be paid pennies too? That'll really encourage quality healthcare I think.

I agree. But those Chemical Engineers can't find work as Chemical Engineers. But they could find work elsewhere as something else. Most likely something lower paying. But the idea of compromising your standard of living is unthinkable to the average American. And so we live on a system that does not take care of someone when they fall. A company becomes massive and profitable and carries the lives of many workers on its shoulders only to drop them hard if it gets out competed and fails.

And yes. Everyone should ideally live as a saint. Notice how most saints lived on very little. Compared to how we live, we should live poorly. To give you an idea, if you were to take an educated estimate of all the money in the world and divided it up between all living people, each person would only get somewhere around 2-5 thousand American dollars. That means that if you own more than that then there are other people out there who have less than that to live on. So you should live dirt poor so long as there are other people who need your support to live healthy decent lives. And there will always be those people. Being a truly good person is quite the sacrifice.

Not for profit doesn't always mean the organization runs purely off of donations. It means it runs and sells its goods without trying to make any profit besides operation costs. Imagine if every business in existence kept working but instead of trying to squeeze profit out of their customers, they simple made enough to work effectively.

And what allowed that exploitation of the 9 million? It was the current system. And 500k for 5 years? That's 100k per year. Do you know how many people could live healthily off of that? Yes, taking that much is taking too much from any angle it can be looked at. And even if your father did the right thing in who he represented, him keeping the money and not further helping was not the right thing to do. Helping others to the full extent of your ability is always the right thing to do.

Communism is the same as capitalism when they are taken to the extreme. In both systems their is either a free market run by the people in which no government regulates or there is a massive government that every single person is part of and thus is run by the people. If the people in a pure capitalist utopia are moral then they will give to those in need freely and work like one big family structure. If the people in a communist utopia were moral they would work hard to contribute and give to those in need just like a family structure. They are the same idea at the core. Both could work.

And you might be able to do some good getting paid if you gave up a better job for one that you feel does more good. Like a nurse working at a clinic instead of a high paying hospital job. But your father would be doing more good if he didn't charge for his services. Or if he at least charged less. Surely you cant argue that your family needs 100 dollars a year to function.

And that's exactly why rich people have trouble getting into heaven. Because like you just said "Why can't I be a good person and still be wealthy and live better than everyone else?"

And do you read what you are saying? That it would take a saint. Someone inhuman to give up their riches once they have them. A rich man will give any justification in order to keep his riches.

And I'm afraid that "My father could have done worse" is not a very good argument. Anyone could do worse.

Are you sure society would collapse? There are very few services that are needed. People could live without their iPhones, without their alcohol. Aside from medical, food, shelter, and clothes, the rest could collapse and humanity would go on. Perhaps healthier without such things. And couldn't that essential function be preformed better by someone who wants to do it simply to help others instead of to make money? Can you not see the evil in a business that would cut corners and hurt others just to make money?

Graduated? Spent my summer working for my dad... I. E. 12 hours a day 6 days a week representing his clients, trade workers who weren't paid their dues by shady contractors.

Im not trying to prove myself. I'm trying to illustrate that the wealthy illustrate their goodness in their work, because their wealth tends to stem from their work.

People love to bag on ceos for making 1000x more than the average worker, but they don't care that he works 6 day weeks every week. They don't care that he has to bring his laptop and phone on every vacation and do business there too. Yes he can buy wonderful things, but the majority of his life is spent in service of his company which employs thousands and provides services to potentially millions.

Even if he didn't give charity, on what planet is THAT not enough? Not misers and userers who cheat people for their wealth, yeah fuck em. But plenty of wealthy, of not the majority, achieved their wealth through grit and hard work.

And that's wonderful and always good to hear of a family doing well. But just doing well yourself is not a good deed. Running a business and making profit by working is not a good deed. It's not bad either but unless you are working non-profit then you are not being a good person. You are being a normal person.

There is no goodness in your works unless your works are good. Asking for money for a service is not a good act, it is a fair trade. But a trade is meant to be equal. Each party has too much of a resource and so both exchange an equal amount of each and both get what they need by both giving. A fair trade. But it's when you take more than you need it becomes amoral. Even if you can make your slight desperate neighbor give you 3 apples for your 2 peaches, should you?

And the capitalist system in which you and your father work does not do good on its own. It preys on the weak and allows for those in power to exploit those without.

A CEO is a good example of this. Do you think a CEO works 1000x harder than a blue collar worker? Even if he worked 24 hours of the day and never slept would that constitute 1000x times more work invested? Or did they find an exploit in the system. Someone can not win unless someone else loses. You cannot gain without taking that gain from somewhere.

Do you think that major corporations advertise and worry about profit margins so heavily because they are worried their business will fail and people won't be able to buy their products? Do you think people work their jobs everyday because they are happy and eager to hold up a part of a system that feeds and clothes people? Of course not. They want money to fulfill their own luxuries. And corporations do not service the masses, they profit from them. And I admit I haven't studied ever single corporation, but the ones I have always exploit wherever possible and would exploit further if not for backlash from the public.

There is no goodness in work you do and profit from.

And it is on this and ever other planet that that is not enough. Does not everyone who can be called a decent person hug and kiss their mother? Does not every normal sane person help the naked stranger they pass, shivering on the street?

This is not being a good person. It is being a decent person. So often today is being decent and doing the bare minimum considered being good. But to do good you must go beyond the convenient and good for you. A good deed is worthless if you did it simply because it also served you.

To be a good person is to be gentle and empathetic to those who hate you. It is to search out the people you don't know are suffering and try to help them. It is to give of yourself. Not give the minimum and spend the extra on yourself.

This is exactly why a rich man has trouble getting into heaven. It's not because he chooses to do evil. It's because he warps the meaning of doing good until it allows him to live his life comfortably and not have to give anything that strains him one bit.

If a ceo quits that may very well end a company and lose thousands of men.

Also last I checked being normal is not diametrically opposed to being good

The world can't function on not for profit organizations. But it's obvious you don't understand balance.

You think some kind of communist utopia is the ideal? Where no one works for themselves, everyone works for everyone else? Newsflash. I'm representing people who get destroyed by your utopia. I'm protecting them from liars and cheats who would swindle them out of millions of hard earned dollars and you have the audacity to say that we are evil because we aren't out in the streets feeding the homeless.

My dad has helped far more people than you can ever dream of helping, you're just mad because he gets paid to do it.

And when that company falls then another will rise to fill the need. I'm sure most companies would like you to believe that their product is what civilization hinges on but unless all our food or water starts coming from a single corporation then that Achilles heel is non existent. Not to say that some wouldn't consider the fall of Apple the end of the world.

It's normal to care about one's own well being. It's normal to do what is necessary to survive. And it is normal to want to go beyond survival and thrive and live in luxury. But if your living in luxury is hurting someone else then yes, it's bad. And there is nothing morally good about you simply taking up space and sucking up more resources than you really need.

And the world could function on not for profit organizations. In fact it would work better. Competition is good but can go too far. And while anyone is entitled to do well in an economy, there's no reason an organization should be allowed to gain unspeakable amounts of power. It's a system that simply equates success with immorality.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not proposing a communist utopia. I'm proposing a moral utopia. Capitalism and communism are irrelevant. Both work in moral society and fail miserably in an amoral society.

Though I highly doubt you're representing people who get destroyed by any utopia. It sounds to me like they get hurt by amoral people living selfish lives. Ones who were unable to win in the competition that is capitalism and thus have tried to resort to amoral means in order to make money.

I also never said you were evil. You seem to be getting upset when put under a moral scrutiny so I think we should end this argument as I make a policy to never argue with anyone who become the least bit angry or upset.

What I said was that you are rich and content in your life. You are happy to work for yourself and make money doing it. But what do you really give for the good others? I do see the importance of lawyers in this loop hole ridden Godless system we call law and justice, but even if you serve a function in society, if you profit from it and then use that profit only for self pleasure, then how exactly is that good? Especially when there are starving and suffering people who could be given a tolerable life with that same excess you spend on luxury.

And I admit I am jealous of the amount of good your father does. I wish I were capable of doing more than I do now. But that doesn't change the fact that nothing self serving can be considered a good deed. Even if your profit helps someone else on the side.

Are you kidding me? When the oil industry collapsed in alberta there was nowhere for Chemical Engineers to go. Companies don't just magically appear and when they collapse, the ripple effect on honest people's lives are devastating. That's friggen WHY too big to fail is even a thing. As shitty as it is to bail out irresponsible companies, the alternative of letting them collapse would have ruined America far worse.

>if living in luxury is hurting someone that is bad.

Are you fucking kidding me? So how poor do you need to live? Do we all need to be the saint mentioned above? Living like homeless people? Is that the only way to be good?

>The world could function as not for profit

Who would donate to them? No one would have any money? It'd be a bartering system of services being managed in the form of not for profits on an olligarchical level. Inevitably competition would be injected and rather than denying currency, services would be denied. Right now people just need to budget themselves. In your "utopia" regardless of what people do, if the not-for-profit olligarch they belong to is in strife with another they will lose all services. Wow, really well thought out!

>The current system equates success with immorality

My father literally just stopped someone from wrongfully taking 9 million dollars from hard-working tradesmen. Is his success somehow immoral because he asked for 500k (only for winning) after spending 5 years on the case? He is the obstacle to immorality. Him and everyone like him. So yeah, I'm mad that you sweep that shit under the rug just because he enjoys the luxuries that his labour has earned him.

>I'm proposing a moral utopia

Where communism is the doctrine.

>I am fighting people who couldn't win competitively.

They view the capacity of their ability to mask truth to be a competitive attribute, but my argument is in your "utopia" assholes like this will still exist. My dad and other people like him are the only protection regular people have against these dicks. But no, he isn't a good person. After all, he's paid.

>you're upset that according to my standards you aren't good.

Yes, because your standards are bullshit. You effectively require that in order to be good you must live as if you are in poverty. It is very rare that anyone with the skills necessary not to live in poverty would choose poverty over a decent life. You are requiring the soul of a saint for the title of "good".

>you are happy to work for yourself.

In service to others.

>do you really give good to others

My dad could have been the lawyer for the snake you know.

>even if you serve an essential function in society, if you profit from it and don't immediately give it all away, how are you good?

Because you are performing an essential function for society. If you don't do it, society collapses. Or should our doctors be paid pennies too? That'll really encourage quality healthcare I think.

I agree. But those Chemical Engineers can't find work as Chemical Engineers. But they could find work elsewhere as something else. Most likely something lower paying. But the idea of compromising your standard of living is unthinkable to the average American. And so we live on a system that does not take care of someone when they fall. A company becomes massive and profitable and carries the lives of many workers on its shoulders only to drop them hard if it gets out competed and fails.

And yes. Everyone should ideally live as a saint. Notice how most saints lived on very little. Compared to how we live, we should live poorly. To give you an idea, if you were to take an educated estimate of all the money in the world and divided it up between all living people, each person would only get somewhere around 2-5 thousand American dollars. That means that if you own more than that then there are other people out there who have less than that to live on. So you should live dirt poor so long as there are other people who need your support to live healthy decent lives. And there will always be those people. Being a truly good person is quite the sacrifice.

Not for profit doesn't always mean the organization runs purely off of donations. It means it runs and sells its goods without trying to make any profit besides operation costs. Imagine if every business in existence kept working but instead of trying to squeeze profit out of their customers, they simple made enough to work effectively.

And what allowed that exploitation of the 9 million? It was the current system. And 500k for 5 years? That's 100k per year. Do you know how many people could live healthily off of that? Yes, taking that much is taking too much from any angle it can be looked at. And even if your father did the right thing in who he represented, him keeping the money and not further helping was not the right thing to do. Helping others to the full extent of your ability is always the right thing to do.

Communism is the same as capitalism when they are taken to the extreme. In both systems their is either a free market run by the people in which no government regulates or there is a massive government that every single person is part of and thus is run by the people. If the people in a pure capitalist utopia are moral then they will give to those in need freely and work like one big family structure. If the people in a communist utopia were moral they would work hard to contribute and give to those in need just like a family structure. They are the same idea at the core. Both could work.

And you might be able to do some good getting paid if you gave up a better job for one that you feel does more good. Like a nurse working at a clinic instead of a high paying hospital job. But your father would be doing more good if he didn't charge for his services. Or if he at least charged less. Surely you cant argue that your family needs 100 dollars a year to function.

And that's exactly why rich people have trouble getting into heaven. Because like you just said "Why can't I be a good person and still be wealthy and live better than everyone else?"

And do you read what you are saying? That it would take a saint. Someone inhuman to give up their riches once they have them. A rich man will give any justification in order to keep his riches.

And I'm afraid that "My father could have done worse" is not a very good argument. Anyone could do worse.

Are you sure society would collapse? There are very few services that are needed. People could live without their iPhones, without their alcohol. Aside from medical, food, shelter, and clothes, the rest could collapse and humanity would go on. Perhaps healthier without such things. And couldn't that essential function be preformed better by someone who wants to do it simply to help others instead of to make money? Can you not see the evil in a business that would cut corners and hurt others just to make money?